The UN utilized the unrepresentative "consensus" process to build upon class warfare that they created by convincing "rich" and "poor" nations that "global warming" is fact rather than theory, in order to produce the rules for their wealth redistribution scheme during the meeting in Bonn. The rules are complete; the UN is now focused on setting penalties for noncompliance and on international environmental governance embodied in the imminent Earth Charter (www.earthcharter.org).

Maurice Strong is the moving force behind the plan, and is paid $1 per year to reform the UN around the environmental issue. Strong wanted nations to ratify the Earth Charter at the meeting he headed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but reluctantly said that they were not "ready for it" then. He now believes that nations will be "ready" for the Earth Charter in 2002. Strong has robust support for the design from Klaus Topfer, Executive Director of the UN Environment Program, who recently "cited a need to better define the dimensions of international environmental governance."

Valli Moosa, South Africa’s environment and tourism minister, is planning next year’s meeting in Johannesburg entitled the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which he says will be an opportunity to "significantly strengthen" the mechanisms of international environmental governance.

Strong, Topfer and Moosa, as well as, conference President Pronk and Executive Secretary Cutajar of The Hague and Bonn meetings have unremittingly worked through the UN to create the rules for the wealth transfer scheme in the Kyoto Protocol. After penalties for noncompliance are added to the treaty at a UN meeting in Marrakech, Morocco this October, the UN plans to consolidate the wealth transfer scheme in Johannesburg next year into what Strong calls, "a people’s Earth Charter."

Strong says the people’s Earth Charter "will be presented as a statement of basic moral and ethical principles to guide the behavior of people and nations toward one another and the Earth." In the Earth Charter’s Principles, Sec. III, 10 a., it promotes "the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations" that Strong says will address motivation by reviewing "the systems of taxes, incentives, penalties, subsidies, etc. through which governments motivate the behavior of individuals and corporations, and to review those, and to revamp them, to provide positive incentives for sustainable behavior" adding that these are "our deepest moral, spiritual and ethical beliefs." (www.confnews.com)

President Bush did the right thing by calling the Kyoto Protocol "fatally flawed," but conference President Pronk continues to try to lure the U.S. claiming that the Bonn agreement will make it easier for them to ratify the protocol at some time in the future. "We are creating here a legal fact, a political fact, and an economic fact," he said, adding that the U.S. cannot ignore such facts.

On the battlefront in Bonn, the American delegation head Paula Dobriansky seemed to reach out to the UN saying that while America "shares a commitment to addressing climate change, it has not yet crafted a new multilateral approach all countries can support." She added, "Make no mistake—an approach that does not accommodate every nation’s efforts to pursue sustainable development cannot endure…our objective is to ensure that our new approach provides a long-term solution that is environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair."

Dobriansky’s call for a "new multilateral approach…to pursue sustainable development" describes the UN’s 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. If America is to keep any vestige of what our Founding Fathers gave us, a sovereign constitutional republic, then she must clearly oppose not only the Kyoto Protocol in Morocco in October, but also the Earth Charter that is international environmental governance at the UN meeting in South Africa.

America furthermore cannot depend on her allies; they did not stand with her in Bonn, and there is no reason to expect them to at future UN meetings either. The fact that the U.S. pays nearly a quarter of the entire UN budget has not bought any friends at the UN. When the penalties for noncompliance are in place for the newly created wealth transfer scheme within the Kyoto treaty, it remains to be seen whether the U.S. will be able to buy and sell in this new global marketplace as a non-partner. Make no mistake--America’s very existence as a sovereign nation could be determined by whether she is forced into the UN’s scheme for international environmental governance under the Earth Charter.

*This is the final part of a three-part conclusion on the UN meeting held in Bonn, Germany, 16-27 July 2001.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum